[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regardingJEP-0124HTTP Binding
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Dec 7 18:53:43 UTC 2005
Christopher Zorn wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote On 12/02/05 22:39,:
>>>> Ian Paterson wrote:
>>>>> Peter is proposing that the 'route' attribute should be a simple
>>>>> "host[:port]" value. Other possibilities *might* be "xmpp:host[:port]"
>>>>> (compatible with existing JEP-0124 spec) or just "xmpp:host". The latter
>>>>> is compatible with XMPP URI/IRIs ('route' is after all an XMPP resource
>>>>> identifier), but perhaps it is not ideal, see
>>>> OK, so we have three options:
>>>> 1. host[:port]
>>>> Pro: specifies everything we need
>>>> Con: not backwards-compatible with what we have now
>>>> doesn't support (future?) non-XMPP connections
>>>> 2. xmpp:host[:port]
>>>> Pro: backwards-compatible with what we have now
>>>> Con: looks like an XMPP URI but isn't (confusing?)
>>> Option 1 is sufficient for now ... but potentially limiting.
>>> Using "xmpp:host:port" or "xmpp://host:port" (or variations thereof)
>>> would take care of potential future requirements from what we can
>>> envision now ...
>>> Since there are already implementations of clients and
>>> servers/connection managers out there - the changes made should be , if
>>> possible , as backwardly compatible as possible.
>> The more I think about it, the more I don't like specifying URIs
>> (because there are all sorts of rules for processing those which don't
>> apply to us here) but I don't have strong objections to proto:host:port
>> (even though I think proto: is unnecessary and I think it's potentially
>> confusing to have something that looks like a URI but isn't). How many
>> people have implemented this feature (which was added to JEP-0124 in June)?
> It is implemented in punjab, and it checks for xmpp: to start. Other
> than that, I do not parse it as an URI, so I do not think it is
> necessary. host:port is fine by me. :)
OK. I have changed it to be "proto:host:port", see here:
The relevant text is:
A connection manager MAY be configured to enable sessions with more than
one XMPP server in different domains. When requesting a session with
such a 'proxy' connection manager, a client SHOULD include a 'route'
attribute that specifies the protocol, hostname, and port of the server
with which it wants to communicate, formatted as "proto:host:port"
(e.g., "xmpp:jabber.org:9999"). 
 Although the syntax of the 'route' attribute bears a superficial
resemblance to a URI or IRI, it is not a URI/IRI and MUST NOT be
processed in accordance with the rules specified in RFC 3986, RFC 3987,
Naturally this is provisional text and it must be approved by the Jabber
Council since the JEP is Draft.
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards